STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMANLAL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order of the Writ Judge giving interim relief in the Writ petition. We need not repeat the facts as they have been fully set out in the order of the Single judge. However, a few points may be noted. The petitioner before the Writ Judge, Who will be referred to as "the employer", made an application before the 7th Labour Court, Bombay, under sections 78, 79 and 97 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which application was numbered as Application (LCB) No. 12 of 1988. In the application, a declaration was sought regarding an alleged strike resorted to by the workman in the employer's Mills from 27th october, 1988 as illegal. An application for interim relief was filed purportedly under Section 119-D of the said Act. On 28th October, 1988. Fourfold interim relief was granted by the Labour court. The employer asked for police assistance in carrying out the order of the Labour Court. The police did not assist the employer or to the extent he wanted and hence the writ petition was filed. The learned Writ Judge, after discussing the facts and law and considering the submission made before her by Senior Counsel for the State, granted interim relief in terms of prayers (d) (i), (d) (ii) and (d) (iii) of the writ petition. Prayers (d) (i), (d) (ii) and (d) (iii) granted read as under :

(2.) DURING the course of the hearing, a number of aspects of the matter has struck us. These aspects are required to be stated and our views thereon. In the first place, we have some hesitation in upholding the grant of interim relief by the Labour Court under Section 119-D of the said Act. Section 119-D reads as under :-

(3.) ASSUMING that the Labour Court did have some limited power to pass appropriate interim orders, it would appear to us that the interim orders which are passed go far beyond the scope of the application. A Court including the High Court is not at large. Once some matter comes before it, the orders which can be passed and directions which it can give are limited to the scope of the principal application and must normally be restricted to the final substantial prayers sought by the same. We hope in future Labour Courts will keep these principles in mind while entertaining applications under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.